Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
WETA 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CSPAN2 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
CSPAN
Feb 16, 2013 7:00am EST
that in total to our adversaries. in this case, it is the taliban. to get to your point about afghanistan being a base for al qaeda, it has been the goal of the administration to eliminate afghanistan as a base for al qaeda and similar elements. it remains to be seen if they can do that. a drawdown will make it more difficult for us to accomplish that in the long run. host: a couple comments on twitter, asking questions about positive accomplishments. guest: the surge was designed to replicate what happened in iraq. in iraq, you had a situation with the anbar awakening. you had the situation, being in, using local forces in order to gain the upper hand against the extremists, whether they were affiliated with al qaeda or were local sympathizers with saddam hussein. that basically worked from a military perspective. when you go to afghanistan, the time when general petraeus became the commander, the attempt was made to replicate what happened. the results were mixed. you had similar afghan units in several provinces that have been turned into a pretty decent area of success for our research effo
PBS
Feb 20, 2013 12:00am PST
enough after the united states leaves to with stan the taliban and the taliban is able to gain somewhat approaching the power they had previously when they had power, that they would welcome al-qaeda back. >> well, you know, one of the big questions that has not been answered by the president's advisors is what's the american military presence going to be after 2014. in the state of the union, he said we'll be down basically by half a year from now. there are 66,000 now. at the end of the february next year it will be 32,000. but what happens after 2014 when the so-called war is over and there are a whole number of options on the table, anywhere i'd say from 3,000 troops to 10,000 troops or 9,000 troops. and also the capabilities that could be kept in the country from the u.s. side counterterrorism error and all that. so i think what military posture the u.s. agrees to keep in after 2014, and that will effect what nato agrees to do, are the non-u.s. part of nato i think will have a big effect what happens in afghanistan in terms of this question. we should be able to preclude that if th
CSPAN
Feb 14, 2013 8:00pm EST
in powering afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the alp program from 30,000 to 45,000. the next centcom commander will also play an important role in shaping our enduring partnership with afghanistan after 2014. the partnership that i fully support. ike m. concerned however by the plants to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. 352,000 to 230,000 by 2017. i believe that any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and this afghan security forces make and providing for their country security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by deciding that as we withdraw our forces that there won't get drawdown and afghan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile and significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remain. among the greatest threat to its stability are the safe havens for afghan insurgents across the pakistan border. the government o
NBC
Feb 3, 2013 8:00am PST
% of their population now under afghan control and security. we've been able to diminish the taliban's capabilities. violence has gone down. we're also developing an afghan army that is increased its operational skill to provide security. so we're on the right path towards trying to give afghanistan the opportunity to govern and secure itself. >> general dempsey, very quickly, women in combat. implementing that. is there some movement on capitol hill to pass a law to make sure you don't change standards, somehow lower standards. do you think that's good legislation? >> they can legislate if they like. they don't have to do that, because -- >> you're not going to change your stance? >> we're going to make sure we have the right standards for right job to maintain the readiness of the force. my primary responsibility is the readiness of the force. there's also requirement as we open up occupational specialties to report to congress, and they would have the opportunity to ask us what we've done to standards. look, this really is about changing the paradigm from one of exclusiveness to inclusiveness to
CSPAN
Feb 8, 2013 9:00am EST
out secret effort to persuade the taliban to expel bin laden. as we know, bin laden was not expelled. three months later, his wrath was unleashed with an attack on our embassies. did you advise director tenant against this operation? and if so, why? >> i had a conversation with george and that at the time. every single cia manager, george tennant as deputy director of operations at the time, and other individuals at the counter-terrorism center argued against that operation as well because it was not well grounded in intelligence, and its chances of success were minimal. and it was likely that other individuals would be killed. when i was involved in those discussions, i provided the director and others my professional advice about whether i thought that operation should go forward. i also was engaged in discussion with the saudi government at the time. and i encouraged certain action to be taken to put pressure on the taliban as well as bin laden. >> i take it that your answer to my question is that you did advise in favor of the cancellation of that operation. >> based on what i ha
CSPAN
Feb 6, 2013 1:00pm EST
and defeated the taliban on our behalf not the mean he of our enemy, but these are radical islamic jihadists who want a cal fate -- caliphate in which the united states is sub jew dated to a religious -- subjugated to a religious ruler and they are willing to use violence if necessary, although the muslim brotherhood now seems to indicate that here in america they have made so much progress in infiltrating and getting positions of power in our government, our state department, in our homeland security department, in our justice department, at the white house directly, and direct lines to the president, they have made so much progress in moving toward that goal of a caliphate here in the united states under shari'a law, not under the constitution, that they are thinking maybe violence is not the way forward in america to achieve their goal of making this a shari'a compliant caliphate. but the muslim brotherhood around the world believes many places violence is the way forward in those areas. but we've got to understand who we are facing and what they want to do. and secretary clinton, unfortu
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)